This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
This is county level corruption at it's finest. Used to see a lot of dumb "projects" like this in my home town. Guess whos neice or nephew or brother in law always got the contract to do dipshittery like this? You guessed it sitting council members.
This isn't AI removing a watermark? This is a poor attempt at making photos into something resembling a drawing but instead it looks like a cheap create a character flash game from the 2000s.
When a photographer takes school photos, they'll give the watermarked samples for free and you have to pay to remove the watermark. Running the samples through AI is a way to avoid paying the photographer without violating copyright.
They didn't remove any watermark, they completely altered the images. It isn't a theory that they made something no one wants, it's a shown fact. No one wants this in place of actual photos.
uhh it doesn't become true just because it's what you personally think. Did someone find the originals and show they don't have watermarks?
It is very much your theory that their motivation in doing this was to alter the images into something nobody wants. At least that's what you wrote. That is not a sensible motivation so your theory just doesn't hold up against the idea that they did this to remove watermarks
That's not exactly what they said. They just said that the usage of AI wasn't for removing the watermark. If they just wanted to remove the watermark they wouldn't have ended up using a cartoon image.
No photographer gives samples of hundreds of students, you'd give like half a dozen as samples, if anything. You'd also never show up to a school gig without all or most payment up front and a clear contract. (which you could sue them for not honoring, completely separate from anything to do with copyright)
The OP would of course have mentioned if they were asked to take a selfie and never saw a real photographer, as very relevant to the story. They didn't say that.
2) Do you have proof of this actually happening? Seems like a stretch, like the whole, "litter boxes in classrooms because kids identify as cats" stretch.
I can see why transphobes got the idea about litterboxes in classrooms being because kids identified as cats, there were actually litter boxes in classrooms, but that was incase of a school shooting and a kid had to go to the bathroom. Not because kids identified as cats. I'm not sure why they assumed kids were identifying as cats
I'm anti ai, and this also seems a little fake to me..
QAnon alt-right fear-mongering propaganda. Ranks up there with Jewish space lasers, gay frog rain, and kids going to school as boys and coming home as girls.
Personally, I'm pro-AI to an extent. I think it's a great tool. I think it's something that can be beneficial. I also believe that it should be 100% open source and publicly available. I have no problem with Mr. Rogers dunking on celebrities with 'deez nuts' jokes, or Bob Ross painting shacks where he banged your mom....granted, it gets tiring after seeing the 30th one in a row. I don't like how it's consuming social media and replacing human-generated content with AI content. I'm noticing it more and more in YouTube also (take a listen when you watch YouTube, especially when there's no face in the video...you'll notice there's no breathing either). I think that's why some people like AugustTheDuck dropped their cartoon personae and use their actual faces now, so there's no mistaking that they're a human.
And personally? In my own creative workflow, I will generate an image in StableDiffusion (on my local system, not in the cloud), to get some artistic ideas, then open up my 3D rendering program, and work on building something similar to render, then take that render, and filter it back through the StableDiffusion with a lower creativity score on it to turn it into a photo realistic image.
Before they redacted the account information it was easy to go see who it was and find out that its another POV Pusher, arrested development account that exaggerated the post and later corrected it.
First of all, the onus is not to prove the negative, only to prove the positive.
How do we know this image wasn't doctored? Or created by AI itself? What proof do we have that this is an actual image that is actually what the OOP claims?
How do you know there's not a teapot in orbit around the sun?
If you see something on the internet that makes you upset, the first thing you do is take a deep breath and ask, "Can this be true?" Don't answer it with bias, just an honest answer. Then, if you're still unsure, you can look it up.
First consider the source. "Some guy on Xitter said" is not a viable source. You can quickly turn to a search engine. I use DuckDuckGo, because it claims to be less biased than Google. A quick search shows...no news results, no posts about it, just various links to ways to make goofy yearbook photos using AI.
Would it even be news worthy? That's another thing to consider as well.
There's also the fact that search engines rank pages based on how often they're linked by other pages, like ranking papers based on how many times they're cited in other works.
When you search for AI stuff you're most likely going to find AI tools and guides on how to use them, there's a button near the top to search for only news articles, but again this wouldn't be a big deal to most journalists, and would only be picked up by small local papers if at all.
If anything particularly interesting happened in the relevant time period journalists would cover that before this.
Trust me with how everyone thinks AI is the worst thing since the Black Death if a school was actually using AI for yearbook photos there would be news coverage of it. That is basically Free Money.
Eh considering it was probably an excuse to transfer school funding to a relative, I can see it getting covered up, I've heard of school administrators covering up all sorts of shit, and corruption scandals happen often enough that it's probably more profitable to accept the bribe than publish the story.
No but considering some of you guys give up on the first page of a search engine output, that's not much better.
If you want new articles you can at least learn to use the search engines properly.
It's also worth keeping in mind that some things really aren't that big a deal to most people and that weirder shit has been covered up than an AI year book.
My school didn't even have a yearbook so I don't really see this as a big deal, it's just a mildly annoying thing done by an idiot who probably shouldn't be in charge, a story we'll hear for as long as people can be promoted without the required skills.
No it fucking wouldn’t, I hate ai but the average person doesn’t nor they have strong opinions on it, shit like this making the news when maybe one student felt strongly enough to hate it and post it online is asinine
Bitch have you been outside recently? I don't have enough energy left to get upset at posts. Reality is people do this shit regularly. Just because this is fake doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So eager to be right you forgot things exist outside the internet.
if i was part of the yearbook club, this seems like something i would tell a couple of my friends to mess with them. and then they might start spreading it around the entire school. and then that might get thrown on social media, and from there it can do the rounds on twitter, etc, until we see it here.
if this is real, that school and/or its staff is screwed.
I highly doubt this is real. I guarantee if a school was using AI pictures in yearbooks it would be all over the news. People hate AI with a rabid passion and reporting on that would be the easiest layup ever.
The biggest question I have to this story is "Why?" There honestly is no reason anybody would go an extra step to create pictures that don't accurately represent the students when they have perfectly good ones at hand.
I'm thinking if there is any truth, it's being misrepresented here. Who is they? Is this the entire book? Is it someone just goofing around on the yearbook club?
This is under the assumption they were trying to save money and not feeding it to a relative to run out the budget for that year. Honestly, if you could audit your local school board i think it would be a wakeup call for you.
I guess you could get an unpaid student volunteer to run hundreds of sample photos through a free AI program, although I thought there's a limit on how many images you can generate per day with most of them.
So you either get some unpaid student to set that up or you have some other volunteer do it. This comes down to a difference in opinion. I consider labor a cost and it seems that you don't.
It is literally money to them. They sell your information to the highest bidder. Preferences, Age, Income, States, Job, Medical Record, … they really don’t care what they get. Everything they can get of you, they will use to make a profile of you. That will be used to sell you things, personalized ads and services. And that is an issue with literally any online service, app, program, company that you have a subscription for… Often you need to jump through a dozen hoops, pay extra fees to not gift Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, (…)
your data.
Please stay safe online
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
No photographer is such a smoothbrained moron to give a sample of every single student's photo to the school, lol. If they wanted samples, you'd give like 5 students as samples.
You would also almost certainly have paid up front.
They obviously just thought this looked cool (and were wrong), not being cheap.
Sure maybe, but not the school (or at least not pre payment, pre contract--and probably not the students either, pre payment or pre-contract). You will never ever get even 1/3 of the students to bother giving you their own samples, especially not if you say it's for AI, lol, how is that relevant?
This is in fact MORE expensive than using photos, since you still had to have photos to use as input. So it's not "cheap" at all, it's just ugly and tacky.
Well they probably just didn't have a picture of everyone together and thought it was a relevant way to showcase the year. In 10 years it'll probably be a cool novel thing. Right now, it's corny because AI is everywhere
They had a picture taken that they were under the assumption of would be used for the yearbook. That image was instead fed to an AI, which they didn't expect or consent to.
Why would that be necessary in general? If a person makes a video of say a streetcar passing by and a child is in the background, you would very likely not be meant to have a need of consent first to use the video.
I suspect that OOP would simply have a grounds for complaint based on mundane contract law. I imagine that the parents or students had paid some money for a yearbook and had reasonable expectations of the yearbook using actual photos. Failing to give them a yearbook like that means they have to compensate them for the money taken and possibly some extra for inconvenience and the like. The school probably also claimed that they were taking pictures for the purpose of a yearbook and likely said it would only be for yearbook and memorabilia things. To use them otherwise would violate that agreement and probably laws about what public authorities can do with personal information.
There is still no expectation of privacy when you are in this context, and people generally do not need to give permission to take pictures in public. A school would typically owe the students more duty than this, and probably have varying waivers and laws specifically for schools and what they can and cannot do. Still, the fault here is more so that the school very likely told everyone that they were getting yearbook photos and instead gave them something that is not a yearbook photo, and probably also were given money by each student or family who believed that they were getting a yearbook photo. That wouldn't be a criminal offense or really a privacy violation if the school did it themselves, it would be a somewhat mundane argument in a civil case where a reasonable outcome would be either giving them all actual yearbooks or giving them back their money or a combination of them.
Because one is about individual actions and freedom and the other one is uploading your data and likeness into a database without your consent that will make it so your face is training data and can be used in a million things outside of your control. In a way that isn’t remotely comparable to some guy drawing a picture of you.
During the making of physical art, no data is sent to a server. During the making of AI generation, data is saved on the server. Data usage disclosure is required by law, and the laws are more strict for minors for obvious reasons, and the student probably never agreed to anything to allow the AI software to save their photo on a server.
In simple words, using AI would save the student’s information on a server without the student’s premission, but physical art wouldn’t.
I’m talking about the original image that was taken, not the final product. The original image would be on the server when AI edits the image, but creating digital art based on it doesn’t put the original image on the server
Most digital artists have a digital reference image on screen while they work, meaning the file is saved and being used to produce a product without the consent of the subject. How is that different?
In America, artistic representation of someone else doesn't require their consent. Use of the art to defame someone is illegal, but the creation of the art and display thereof is protected by the first amendment.
You didn't need to consent to that. I didn't consent to you tying your shoes this morning, either. So what? Was never required, so doesn't matter if I did or didn't.
In fact, the school probably has copyright or license on your school photos and you DON'T, if anything, lol. The photographer, not the subject, initially has copyright, and probably handed it to the school as part of their contract. That's assuming this isn't transformative enough to be derivative, which it probably is.
This is tacky and dumb looking and a bad yearbook decision, but not consent-relevant or illegal.
??? How is tying shoes remotely comparable? You own your face, your likeness, someone using that likeness without your consent is criminal. Students consented to pictures for a yearbook, not have their images uploaded to sites where they have control over them. Hello??
Nobody said anything about any website or any upload, where'd you get any of that from?
There is no mention of any "publicity" in the story from the OP, other than the yearbook itself, which you already consented to. So there is no reason to suspect right of publicity was violated here.
Additionally, right of publicity is only relevant to commercial usage. This is a nonprofit school making a yearbook for students in it, not for profit. It wouldn't apply even if somehow they didn't get permission (but they did anyway)
Imagine going back 10 years and you would saw same results. It would be surprising, fun and appreciated. But when AI is used, it is disgusting, cheap and slop
Wow! It’s almost like human labor is respected and uploading kids faces to a database without their consent where their likeness can be used for a bunch of shit without their consent is…different somehow? Huh that’s so weird, who could unravel this mystery!
Yeah, because every human being wants their face and identity shoved into a machine that will do satan only knows what with that information. Great logic on your behalf.
Someone putting time and effort into making real art for everyone one at a time is much different; it isn't a violation of safety and comfort at all. Someone put an insane amount of time and effort into that, and most people will appreciate it for that reason.
Sorry but I don't see difference if someone would just did some digital art trick to get these results. If they would do that in photoshop and it would take them 10 minutes per person, I personally don't see difference
Because having a file of someone on a personal school computer or something like that, made with a program that doesn't steal images and use them for data (unless you use the AI tools that are now unfortunately on photoshop) is much better than mass producing images of your students with an AI program that takes every image it's given and uses them for data? These are MINORS we're talking about, too.
Art programs are extremely different from an AI. Everything about art is extremely different from AI.
It is wrong and stupid - non-consensual and not representative. Though if my school/uni did it, I'd be pretty happy, personally - though I recognize it's just me
TIL that photoshop filters that have existed for ages, are suddenly now "AI" cause kiddos learned about a new boogeyman from the antis and want something to hate.
No online AI interface uses the term "feed" for their upload button and there's no "feeding" in any sense. You upload something, that thing is used as reference and there's no "feeding"
If the watermark was removed the picture would still be of a person since thats what the photographer took but the picture is a cartoon thus we can conclude that it was not a watermark that was removed
That’s also the reason most people in my HS didn’t wanted their yearbook, most of the pics either had strong IA filters to fit in current trends or were "IA inhanced" and the black people on my class pretty much stopped being black
The question is... did anyone ever actually consent to school photos being taken and openly handed out to everyone? Like, at all? Somehow I think, I would like it if those pictures had only been animated/cartoonish versions of us, which can't be recognized later as the specific person anymore. Now there are strangers out there who have a real picture of me, only because we once visited the same school decades ago.
I would absolutely demand a refund. Also next year, don't let it be forgotten that this shit was pulled and nobody should buy the next yearbook. Hit the yearbook committee in the wallet.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
This is just dumb, just use the photos that were taken instead of these discount miis.
This is county level corruption at it's finest. Used to see a lot of dumb "projects" like this in my home town. Guess whos neice or nephew or brother in law always got the contract to do dipshittery like this? You guessed it sitting council members.
*its
The photos are watermarked samples and AI removes the watermark.
This isn't AI removing a watermark? This is a poor attempt at making photos into something resembling a drawing but instead it looks like a cheap create a character flash game from the 2000s.
You haven't seen the original image.
When a photographer takes school photos, they'll give the watermarked samples for free and you have to pay to remove the watermark. Running the samples through AI is a way to avoid paying the photographer without violating copyright.
I know the original image wasn't a cartoon, I don't need to see it to know that since we aren't cartoon characters in real life.
But you asserted the original image didn't have a watermark.
I never said that, I said this process isn't removing a watermark, it is turning a photo into something different that no one wants.
So you're saying the original image did have a watermark?
We don't know but this result isn't what anyone wanted.
Stop trying to win an argument You've already lost and spend that time doing something you enjoy.
This is like saying I cleaned my room by blowing up my house. Yes, in the most technical sense, but now it's completely different than intended.
Are you seriously just making up things to argue against?
The other users theory that the school used ai to remove the water marks makes sense.
Your theory that they used ai to make the pictures into something nobody wants doesn't make sense and so seems much less likely
They didn't remove any watermark, they completely altered the images. It isn't a theory that they made something no one wants, it's a shown fact. No one wants this in place of actual photos.
uhh it doesn't become true just because it's what you personally think. Did someone find the originals and show they don't have watermarks?
It is very much your theory that their motivation in doing this was to alter the images into something nobody wants. At least that's what you wrote. That is not a sensible motivation so your theory just doesn't hold up against the idea that they did this to remove watermarks
That's not exactly what they said. They just said that the usage of AI wasn't for removing the watermark. If they just wanted to remove the watermark they wouldn't have ended up using a cartoon image.
Are you unable to see that this is a cartoon and not a photograph?
The caption says "they fed our faces through AI." How did AI get their faces without a photograph?
I don't think feeding copyrighted images into AI to get cartoons falls under 'fair use'.
"without violating copyright"
No photographer gives samples of hundreds of students, you'd give like half a dozen as samples, if anything. You'd also never show up to a school gig without all or most payment up front and a clear contract. (which you could sue them for not honoring, completely separate from anything to do with copyright)
It completely ruin the photo
https://preview.redd.it/5tl33kteb86g1.jpeg?width=775&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1766c27f08884403eed22012310a70f6941c0d29
Ok that's hilarious
Funniest one for me for some reason.
https://preview.redd.it/mbvi7b33s96g1.jpeg?width=3404&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f4ccdb2dc054c29f81491cd4289ecee3777b09a3
A true Chad won't shave his whiskers or hide his ears
https://i.redd.it/amc01daqsb6g1.gif
Changed my mind, 10/10 use of technology
I dont like Ai... but this is kinda funny 😭
Needs more Tragedeighs.
The first one looking like the 67 kid makes this even worse
I’m anti ai but this is fucking hiliarious
So fucking creepy
weird
Nice
This is dumb..why make them take photos in the first place?
Because, presumably, they also have normal pictures outside of the single page graduation photo.
You needed something to feed into the AI, obviously
It just seems to me like they wanted the students' money for the photos... they could have used self sent selfies from them
The OP would of course have mentioned if they were asked to take a selfie and never saw a real photographer, as very relevant to the story. They didn't say that.
I said they should have done that and not hired a photographer to take photos for them. It's not logical
Tons of them would do a shit job or refuse probably, and/or do duck face, blah blah
Yea, I dont believe that.
Are you telling me people lie on the Internet?
"everything against MY side is fake"
1) Do you know what 'side' I'm on?
2) Do you have proof of this actually happening? Seems like a stretch, like the whole, "litter boxes in classrooms because kids identify as cats" stretch.
I can see why transphobes got the idea about litterboxes in classrooms being because kids identified as cats, there were actually litter boxes in classrooms, but that was incase of a school shooting and a kid had to go to the bathroom. Not because kids identified as cats. I'm not sure why they assumed kids were identifying as cats
I'm anti ai, and this also seems a little fake to me..
QAnon alt-right fear-mongering propaganda. Ranks up there with Jewish space lasers, gay frog rain, and kids going to school as boys and coming home as girls.
Personally, I'm pro-AI to an extent. I think it's a great tool. I think it's something that can be beneficial. I also believe that it should be 100% open source and publicly available. I have no problem with Mr. Rogers dunking on celebrities with 'deez nuts' jokes, or Bob Ross painting shacks where he banged your mom....granted, it gets tiring after seeing the 30th one in a row. I don't like how it's consuming social media and replacing human-generated content with AI content. I'm noticing it more and more in YouTube also (take a listen when you watch YouTube, especially when there's no face in the video...you'll notice there's no breathing either). I think that's why some people like AugustTheDuck dropped their cartoon personae and use their actual faces now, so there's no mistaking that they're a human.
And personally? In my own creative workflow, I will generate an image in StableDiffusion (on my local system, not in the cloud), to get some artistic ideas, then open up my 3D rendering program, and work on building something similar to render, then take that render, and filter it back through the StableDiffusion with a lower creativity score on it to turn it into a photo realistic image.
Before they redacted the account information it was easy to go see who it was and find out that its another POV Pusher, arrested development account that exaggerated the post and later corrected it.
There’s a picture of a yearbook picture made to look like an ai cartoon and a claim to explain it, what evidence do you have to render it all false?
First of all, the onus is not to prove the negative, only to prove the positive. How do we know this image wasn't doctored? Or created by AI itself? What proof do we have that this is an actual image that is actually what the OOP claims?
How do you know there's not a teapot in orbit around the sun?
Stop trying to compare being against AI to transphobia
It's the internet. It's best to assume everything is fake unless there's evidence and sources for it.
Rare wise words in a weary world...
I genuinely see this shit happening. People who run schools are often barely literate, bottom of the barrel, nobody else wanted the job types.
If you see something on the internet that makes you upset, the first thing you do is take a deep breath and ask, "Can this be true?" Don't answer it with bias, just an honest answer. Then, if you're still unsure, you can look it up.
First consider the source. "Some guy on Xitter said" is not a viable source. You can quickly turn to a search engine. I use DuckDuckGo, because it claims to be less biased than Google. A quick search shows...no news results, no posts about it, just various links to ways to make goofy yearbook photos using AI.
https://preview.redd.it/brzz5xclv86g1.png?width=821&format=png&auto=webp&s=67a5b103244d46b0c94d5981f6b55ea4184ffd61
Would it even be news worthy? That's another thing to consider as well.
There's also the fact that search engines rank pages based on how often they're linked by other pages, like ranking papers based on how many times they're cited in other works.
When you search for AI stuff you're most likely going to find AI tools and guides on how to use them, there's a button near the top to search for only news articles, but again this wouldn't be a big deal to most journalists, and would only be picked up by small local papers if at all.
If anything particularly interesting happened in the relevant time period journalists would cover that before this.
Trust me with how everyone thinks AI is the worst thing since the Black Death if a school was actually using AI for yearbook photos there would be news coverage of it. That is basically Free Money.
Eh considering it was probably an excuse to transfer school funding to a relative, I can see it getting covered up, I've heard of school administrators covering up all sorts of shit, and corruption scandals happen often enough that it's probably more profitable to accept the bribe than publish the story.
Do you typically believe everything you hear and see without actually getting any proof of it?
No but considering some of you guys give up on the first page of a search engine output, that's not much better.
If you want new articles you can at least learn to use the search engines properly.
It's also worth keeping in mind that some things really aren't that big a deal to most people and that weirder shit has been covered up than an AI year book.
My school didn't even have a yearbook so I don't really see this as a big deal, it's just a mildly annoying thing done by an idiot who probably shouldn't be in charge, a story we'll hear for as long as people can be promoted without the required skills.
No it fucking wouldn’t, I hate ai but the average person doesn’t nor they have strong opinions on it, shit like this making the news when maybe one student felt strongly enough to hate it and post it online is asinine
Bitch have you been outside recently? I don't have enough energy left to get upset at posts. Reality is people do this shit regularly. Just because this is fake doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So eager to be right you forgot things exist outside the internet.
Then you need to get better media literacy. Ragebait works because its plausible if you have a prior bias.
https://preview.redd.it/nd1m87y7x86g1.png?width=889&format=png&auto=webp&s=e19015b79a168e7a412d8481fe64919372c5e6da
From the 'expert' LOL
Good call, large language models are eager to talk about AI.
They might not always be accurate, but they're good at finding sources of information to cross reference.
This is genuinely the most retarded possible reply to this entire situation you could’ve whipped up. Congratulations couldn’t have done it worse
Hi neutral here. Doesn't seem that impossible if it was like a few months ago during the Ghiblify thing
if i was part of the yearbook club, this seems like something i would tell a couple of my friends to mess with them. and then they might start spreading it around the entire school. and then that might get thrown on social media, and from there it can do the rounds on twitter, etc, until we see it here.
if this is real, that school and/or its staff is screwed.
I highly doubt this is real. I guarantee if a school was using AI pictures in yearbooks it would be all over the news. People hate AI with a rabid passion and reporting on that would be the easiest layup ever.
The biggest question I have to this story is "Why?" There honestly is no reason anybody would go an extra step to create pictures that don't accurately represent the students when they have perfectly good ones at hand.
I'm thinking if there is any truth, it's being misrepresented here. Who is they? Is this the entire book? Is it someone just goofing around on the yearbook club?
how cheap is that school?!
If this is real (it's not), then seems like it would be more expensive to pay for the photography session AND the AI processing of every single photo
This is under the assumption they were trying to save money and not feeding it to a relative to run out the budget for that year. Honestly, if you could audit your local school board i think it would be a wakeup call for you.
That's still not cheaper, that would just be equal in price at best.
That's the point, it's not about saving the budget, but finding a plausible excuse to transfer the money to a family member.
AI processing is free and so are the photos if they're samples.
Nothing is free
That's a weird nitpick. You certainly don't have to pay money for it.
I guess you could get an unpaid student volunteer to run hundreds of sample photos through a free AI program, although I thought there's a limit on how many images you can generate per day with most of them.
You could run it locally on your iPad.
So you either get some unpaid student to set that up or you have some other volunteer do it. This comes down to a difference in opinion. I consider labor a cost and it seems that you don't.
High school students definitely aren't paid to work on the yearbook either.
For a hundred images? No ai process a hundred free images and have them be print quality
You pay with your information….
That isn't money. You're not deep.
It is literally money to them. They sell your information to the highest bidder. Preferences, Age, Income, States, Job, Medical Record, … they really don’t care what they get. Everything they can get of you, they will use to make a profile of you. That will be used to sell you things, personalized ads and services. And that is an issue with literally any online service, app, program, company that you have a subscription for… Often you need to jump through a dozen hoops, pay extra fees to not gift Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, (…) your data. Please stay safe online
[removed]
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Yes, I have heard of the concept of advertising.
No photographer is such a smoothbrained moron to give a sample of every single student's photo to the school, lol. If they wanted samples, you'd give like 5 students as samples.
You would also almost certainly have paid up front.
They obviously just thought this looked cool (and were wrong), not being cheap.
Every individual student is given a sample.
Sure maybe, but not the school (or at least not pre payment, pre contract--and probably not the students either, pre payment or pre-contract). You will never ever get even 1/3 of the students to bother giving you their own samples, especially not if you say it's for AI, lol, how is that relevant?
This is just a baldface lie.
Bullshit. Show me a photographer who charges for samples.
Ooooh - look what we looked like back then!? .... oh.
This is in fact MORE expensive than using photos, since you still had to have photos to use as input. So it's not "cheap" at all, it's just ugly and tacky.
Well they probably just didn't have a picture of everyone together and thought it was a relevant way to showcase the year. In 10 years it'll probably be a cool novel thing. Right now, it's corny because AI is everywhere
That's stupid af
What's the point of taking photos if you're not going to use them? For a YEARBOOK no less.
That's why I question the validity of this story to be honest. The story itself is also extremely vague.
They did use them: as feed stock to the img2img AI. I don't think it looks good and I think it is dumb, but they clearly "used them."
Wait, they replaced everyone's school photos with illustrations? AI is the least weird thing about that.
Edit: Obligatory "if true" but there's a ton of schools (Inc small private) out there so maybe someone was demented enough to do this.
Big companies have been doing that long before Gen Ai.
Fun fact: you don't need someone's consent to make art of them doing pretty much anything.
Why would that suddenly apply to AI?
Because mentioning consent gets extra outrage points.
They had a picture taken that they were under the assumption of would be used for the yearbook. That image was instead fed to an AI, which they didn't expect or consent to.
Because it’s extremely fucking weird to feed minor’s photos into AI with no consent to do so from them or their parents. It’s not hard to understand.
Why would that be necessary in general? If a person makes a video of say a streetcar passing by and a child is in the background, you would very likely not be meant to have a need of consent first to use the video.
I suspect that OOP would simply have a grounds for complaint based on mundane contract law. I imagine that the parents or students had paid some money for a yearbook and had reasonable expectations of the yearbook using actual photos. Failing to give them a yearbook like that means they have to compensate them for the money taken and possibly some extra for inconvenience and the like. The school probably also claimed that they were taking pictures for the purpose of a yearbook and likely said it would only be for yearbook and memorabilia things. To use them otherwise would violate that agreement and probably laws about what public authorities can do with personal information.
You can get such a video taken down and news outlets often preemptively blur such things
There is still no expectation of privacy when you are in this context, and people generally do not need to give permission to take pictures in public. A school would typically owe the students more duty than this, and probably have varying waivers and laws specifically for schools and what they can and cannot do. Still, the fault here is more so that the school very likely told everyone that they were getting yearbook photos and instead gave them something that is not a yearbook photo, and probably also were given money by each student or family who believed that they were getting a yearbook photo. That wouldn't be a criminal offense or really a privacy violation if the school did it themselves, it would be a somewhat mundane argument in a civil case where a reasonable outcome would be either giving them all actual yearbooks or giving them back their money or a combination of them.
Uploading data to some third party servers definitely calls for consent in most developed countries
That is often in the T&C of common forms people sign or agree to, or similar papers and releases.
Because one is about individual actions and freedom and the other one is uploading your data and likeness into a database without your consent that will make it so your face is training data and can be used in a million things outside of your control. In a way that isn’t remotely comparable to some guy drawing a picture of you.
During the making of physical art, no data is sent to a server. During the making of AI generation, data is saved on the server. Data usage disclosure is required by law, and the laws are more strict for minors for obvious reasons, and the student probably never agreed to anything to allow the AI software to save their photo on a server.
In simple words, using AI would save the student’s information on a server without the student’s premission, but physical art wouldn’t.
What about digital art saved on the cloud?
I’m talking about the original image that was taken, not the final product. The original image would be on the server when AI edits the image, but creating digital art based on it doesn’t put the original image on the server
Most digital artists have a digital reference image on screen while they work, meaning the file is saved and being used to produce a product without the consent of the subject. How is that different?
Why does it have to be saved on the cloud though?
That's the common practice nowadays. Backups of backups.
Not sure if this applies universally but no that isn’t true. This logic can be used to claim deepfake porn is legal (it isn’t, where I live)
In America, artistic representation of someone else doesn't require their consent. Use of the art to defame someone is illegal, but the creation of the art and display thereof is protected by the first amendment.
You didn't need to consent to that. I didn't consent to you tying your shoes this morning, either. So what? Was never required, so doesn't matter if I did or didn't.
In fact, the school probably has copyright or license on your school photos and you DON'T, if anything, lol. The photographer, not the subject, initially has copyright, and probably handed it to the school as part of their contract. That's assuming this isn't transformative enough to be derivative, which it probably is.
This is tacky and dumb looking and a bad yearbook decision, but not consent-relevant or illegal.
??? How is tying shoes remotely comparable? You own your face, your likeness, someone using that likeness without your consent is criminal. Students consented to pictures for a yearbook, not have their images uploaded to sites where they have control over them. Hello??
Nobody said anything about any website or any upload, where'd you get any of that from?
There is no mention of any "publicity" in the story from the OP, other than the yearbook itself, which you already consented to. So there is no reason to suspect right of publicity was violated here.
Additionally, right of publicity is only relevant to commercial usage. This is a nonprofit school making a yearbook for students in it, not for profit. It wouldn't apply even if somehow they didn't get permission (but they did anyway)
I'd be so pissed. That's just disrespectful.
Imagine going back 10 years and you would saw same results. It would be surprising, fun and appreciated. But when AI is used, it is disgusting, cheap and slop
Wow! It’s almost like human labor is respected and uploading kids faces to a database without their consent where their likeness can be used for a bunch of shit without their consent is…different somehow? Huh that’s so weird, who could unravel this mystery!
Yeah, because every human being wants their face and identity shoved into a machine that will do satan only knows what with that information. Great logic on your behalf.
Someone putting time and effort into making real art for everyone one at a time is much different; it isn't a violation of safety and comfort at all. Someone put an insane amount of time and effort into that, and most people will appreciate it for that reason.
Sorry but I don't see difference if someone would just did some digital art trick to get these results. If they would do that in photoshop and it would take them 10 minutes per person, I personally don't see difference
Because having a file of someone on a personal school computer or something like that, made with a program that doesn't steal images and use them for data (unless you use the AI tools that are now unfortunately on photoshop) is much better than mass producing images of your students with an AI program that takes every image it's given and uses them for data? These are MINORS we're talking about, too.
Art programs are extremely different from an AI. Everything about art is extremely different from AI.
L ragebait
That's not real
It is wrong and stupid - non-consensual and not representative. Though if my school/uni did it, I'd be pretty happy, personally - though I recognize it's just me
That is awful
TIL that photoshop filters that have existed for ages, are suddenly now "AI" cause kiddos learned about a new boogeyman from the antis and want something to hate.
Cool but this isn’t a filter
AIbros don't care about consent. lol
What does weird al have to do with this?
the word "cringe" as the first word in the quote is funny ngl
Pro or not, this is kinda stupid
oh no...anyway
Putting minors photos into AI is pretty weird given how often AI is being used to make CP now.
There's not such thing as "feed" to AI in this case. No one says "fed to Photoshop".
The pictures. The pictures were fed. Ai is fed. This is a term used by people in charge of ai.
People in charge? Who?
No online AI interface uses the term "feed" for their upload button and there's no "feeding" in any sense. You upload something, that thing is used as reference and there's no "feeding"
when you think you're paying for a professional photograph of your child but you get facebook coporate friendly non copyrighted bullshit
Cring indeed
this is embarrassingly stupid
Actual brain virus.
Yeah i think that isn't about ai, is about people that lead schools being dumb
If the watermark was removed the picture would still be of a person since thats what the photographer took but the picture is a cartoon thus we can conclude that it was not a watermark that was removed
Ok but who asked them to do that?
what is the point of this
Cropped out the ‘cringe chungus’
"Cring
That’s also the reason most people in my HS didn’t wanted their yearbook, most of the pics either had strong IA filters to fit in current trends or were "IA inhanced" and the black people on my class pretty much stopped being black
The question is... did anyone ever actually consent to school photos being taken and openly handed out to everyone? Like, at all? Somehow I think, I would like it if those pictures had only been animated/cartoonish versions of us, which can't be recognized later as the specific person anymore. Now there are strangers out there who have a real picture of me, only because we once visited the same school decades ago.
And AI bros wonder why we note how consent is a important thing to note against them.
I would absolutely demand a refund. Also next year, don't let it be forgotten that this shit was pulled and nobody should buy the next yearbook. Hit the yearbook committee in the wallet.
Why is it always GPT too. OpenAI got the worst image gen on the market. Theirs were never good even like half a year ago it looked like shit
If you asked about 10 guys on the street to name an ai, it'd probably be chat-gpt because they really took off from students using it to cheat
She looks like a Mii 😭🙏
Maybe they don't want to invade your privacy?
It's also nice
They already have your pictures which you mostly like had to consent for them to be taken
Yeah